Global education policy mobilities and subnational policy practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on data from three levels of education policy-making in Canada, in this paper we identify variegated interactions of global circulations of sustainability discourses in education in relation to priorities and responses at subnational levels of government, including provinces and territorial ministries of education, local school divisions, and schools. Understanding ‘scale’ as mutable and practiced vs. fixed, we discuss instances of policy recoding or mutation when global UN priorities have been shifted to reflect language or priorities suited to education ministries and school divisions; as well as examples of policy immobility, where subnational education bodies did not engage with UN sustainability approaches. Cases of policy amplification are also highlighted, in which school division policy priorities appeared to increase the influence of provincial policy. In some cases, intentional efforts of ‘rescaling’ seemed to influence policy responses, such as through processes of school division amalgamation, or the growing attempts to relocalise policy in Canada’s north. We draw on data from across six Canadian provinces and territories and 10 school divisions to better understand the mobilities of sustainability in education policy in relation to subnational policy practice, including via topological influences such as policy actors and certification programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it